Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: OT Re: [Leica] still more on Leica "rumor" and NYT
From: bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen)
Date: Wed Jan 4 13:39:46 2006

You haven't offended me in the least - you've simply demonstrated that you
know nothing about how news is reported.


On 1/4/06 4:12 PM, "mcyclwritr@comcast.net" <mcyclwritr@comcast.net> wrote:

> Catch a breath, B.D.  Here...just below, you'll note that I did say one 
> would
> be tempted to believe the governor. So, I did cut Craig's paper some slack.
> Does that excuse the NYT from not confirming? I suppose, if you want to 
> hold
> the NYT to the same standards as The News & Observer (Raleigh-Durham), go 
> with
> it. 
> 
> My apologies for egregiously offending you.
> 
> -Chris Lawson    
> 
> 
>> True, one would be tempted to accept what the state's governor said as 
>> truth
>> regarding the matter. While the first-edition stories were incorrect,
>> nonetheless, that would seem to make the story less wantonly sloppy.
>> 
>> Do note, however, that the mining company's spokesman did NOT proclaim 
>> there
>> were survivors. Nope.
>> 
>> -Chris Lawson
> 
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@comcast.net>
>> No, not "less wantonly sloppy " - not at all sloppy.
>> I, for one, am still waiting to hear about your new career as a press
>> critic, and the experience upon which it's based.
>> 
>> And while we're speaking of "wantonly sloppy," and lack of accuracy, I
>> wonder when we can expect to hear to see your correction- 'Oh, the 
>> Governor
>> the state announced it? Guess I was wrong when I said the Times was
>> irresponsible in reporting it."
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/4/06 3:29 PM, "mcyclwritr@comcast.net" <mcyclwritr@comcast.net> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Craig's newpaper reported:
>>> 
>>> "The story we published, from the Associated Press, quoted the governor 
>>> of
>>> West Virginia and a high-level state official, both on the record, 
>>> saying 12
>>> miners were alive and being examined. Relatives were celebrating and 
>>> singing
>>> hymns. The story noted that the mine owner, International Coal Group 
>>> Inc.,
>>> had
>>> not confirmed that the miners were alive. But neither had company 
>>> officials
>>> done anything to contradict the reports - and it appears they took 
>>> several
>>> hours to set the record straight."
>>> 
>>> True, one would be tempted to accept what the state's governor said as 
>>> truth
>>> regarding the matter. While the first-edition stories were incorrect,
>>> nonetheless, that would seem to make the story less wantonly sloppy.
>>> 
>>> Do note, however, that the mining company's spokesman did NOT proclaim 
>>> there
>>> were survivors. Nope.
>>> 
>>> -Chris Lawson
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
>>> From: Craig Zeni <clzeni@mindspring.com>
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 4, 2006, at 1:54 PM, mcyclwritr@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> This exactly the sort of NYT apologist retort I anticipated. That's
>>>>> why my original post included a whiff of Basic Reporting 101, which,
>>>>> predictably, is missing from your reply.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How do you know what the "mining company told family members and
>>>>> others?" Was it broadcast on TV? Did you see actual, talking-head
>>>>> footage? Did that talking head say to the effect of "It has been
>>>>> confirmed that rescuers have reached 12 surviving miners?" If so, I
>>>>> defer to you. I didn't see it. Further, who is a "mining company?" How
>>>>> can a company speak? It speaks through a spokesman. Who is that
>>>>> person? What, exactly, did he say? Report it, wrapped it in quotation
>>>>> marks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And that's just part of why this particular misreporting debacle is so
>>>>> embarrassing. Nobody from the wire service or any other reporting
>>>>> agency took the time CONFIRM a damn thing. Not one damn thing. See the
>>>>> difference? Spreading rumors and miscommunication versus factual,
>>>>> substantiated reporting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Don't settle for sloppy reporting. Demand facts. Get information from
>>>>> numerous sources, whether you're the reporter or the reader.
>>>> 
>>>> I believe that you're incorrect.
>>>> 
>>>>  From our local newspaper, read this:  http://tinyurl.com/7sggw - "The
>>>> story we published, from the Associated Press, quoted the governor of
>>>> West Virginia and a high-level state official, both on the record,
>>>> saying 12 miners were alive and being examined."
>>>> 
>>>> Still convinced it's sloppy?  Only if you think that it's irresponsible
>>>> and sloppy to actually trust an on-the-record quote from the governor
>>>> of the state.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from jplaurel at spectare.com (Jim Laurel) (OT Re: [Leica] still more on Leica "rumor" and NYT)
In reply to: Message from mcyclwritr at comcast.net (mcyclwritr@comcast.net) (OT Re: [Leica] still more on Leica "rumor" and NYT)